Posted by SharonH/OH on 10/1/10 12:02pm
Msg #355007

Ohio AG to investigate notaries

This could get interesting.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2010/10/01/brunner-seeks-probe-of-notaries.html

Reply by Teresa/FL on 10/1/10 12:15pm
Msg #355008

"Brunner said notarized documents are not being verified by the person signing them, as required."

The person signing them would be the affiant, not the notary. As we all know, the affiant's signature is notarized and the notary is not required to verify the information in the document.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 10/1/10 12:22pm
Msg #355011

"notary is not required to verify the information in the doc

But notary is required to swear in affiant and watch him sign affidavit.
Understand that in many of these cases, jurats was notrizeed in mass after signing by "reviewer"

Reply by Teresa/FL on 10/1/10 12:33pm
Msg #355013

Re: "notary is not required to verify the information in the doc

I do understand that many of these documents were probably notarized without the signer being present, but that is not what this quote says:

"Brunner said notarized documents are not being verified by the person signing them, as required."

If the SOS is suggesting notaries should be investigated, it should be for improperly notarizing signatures without requiring the presence of the signer to swear in the affiant or acknowledge their signature on the documents.

Other than confirming that the document is complete and does not contain any blanks, the notary is not responsible for verifying the information contained in the documents.

If proper notarial procedure is not being followed, of course the notary should be investigated. The presence of the signer is a requirement and should not be overlooked for convenience sake.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 10/1/10 12:29pm
Msg #355012

"Brunner said notarized documents are not being verified by the person signing them, as required."

Or could she have meant the notaries were signing their names to acks without verifying the signature through personal appearance?? - as in the poor notary was handed a huge stack of docs already signed by somebody and told to start stamping or ... lose her job? If you do the math according to the stats in the article, they were notarizing 100-125 docs an hour every month.

"Brunner cited testimony taken from Chase employee Beth Ann Cottrell in Columbus this year in which she said eight people signed off and notarized 18,000 documents per month without reviewing the loan files. "

Reply by Tess on 10/1/10 12:21pm
Msg #355010

Re: I suspect that there will be a lot of “in house”

notaries who will lose their commissions soon, because they listened to their bosses and not their state laws.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 10/1/10 12:37pm
Msg #355015

More on this subject

This is from a mortgage news service:

"... The sheer volume of foreclosure cases materializing out of the housing crisis seems to have given rise to what’s being called the “robo-signers” – servicing execs that mechanically sign off on foreclosure actions and push them through the assembly line thousands upon thousands a month, without abiding by clearly defined laws, such as having the signature notarized and ensuring they have personal knowledge of the information’s accuracy.

Analysts say they are expecting more lenders to follow GMAC and JPMorgan and make their own foreclosure
freeze announcements in the coming weeks. These robo-signers may be commonplace fixtures in a growing number of servicing shops struggling to keep up with large numbers of foreclosure cases.

According to Mark Anaya, they are more prevalent than the industry would like to admit. Anaya is with Veritas, which performs federal and state compliance audits of mortgage loan documents.

Anaya singles out several prolific robo-signers by name with what he says are clear discrepancies in their paperwork, including John Kennerty with the Wells Fargo division America’s Servicing Company who has signed off on foreclosures bearing a number of different banks’ names; and China Brown, who has approved foreclosure cases for about 20 to 30 different banks as an officer of MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.)

Anaya says his examinations have uncovered inconsistencies in case numbers for a single borrower; missing ownership assignments on loans that have been securitized; contradictions in the penned job titles of foreclosure approvers, some using different titles in documents signed on the same day; and flat-out fraud in instances where foreclosure was filed by a company that did not legally record a Substitution of Trustee until months later.

The repercussions of so-called robo-signers have cast a dark shadow over banks’ foreclosures practices and put the servicing business under the microscope.

Fitch Ratings issued a notice to servicers this week. The agency said, “These probes may highlight weaknesses in the processes, controls, and procedures of certain…servicers and may lead to servicer rating downgrades. Any servicer with a significant portion of their portfolio in judicial foreclosure states will be either directly or indirectly impacted by the attention focused on this problem.”

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/1/10 12:43pm
Msg #355016

This "robo-signer" mentality should have been

evident in the BofA foreclosures where BofA foreclosed on and took possession of homes they had no liens on - incorrect properties, addresses, property descriptions, and even foreclosing on properties that were owned outright! It's evident by these errors that someone, somewhere just wasn't paying attention to what they were signing or doing.

Sad, sad, sad...

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 10/1/10 12:55pm
Msg #355020

Re: This "robo-signer" mentality should have been

I think all these big banks were just too cheap to hire and train people to do this work and and thought they could get a handful of people to shovel all this stuff through and nobody would notice or care. Same with HAMP - which by all accounts is a disaster - but HUD and the FHA keep hammering at lenders to walk this path - but none of them every hired enough people to process all the paperwork... and still haven't, as far as I can see.

Reply by MonicaFL on 10/1/10 6:58pm
Msg #355076

Re: This "robo-signer" mentality should have been

Just today on the news JP Morgan Chase put a freeze on foreclosures and BoA is considering doing the same because of the issues as mentioned in the previous posts.

Reply by DD/OR on 10/1/10 3:58pm
Msg #355048

The way I interpret the statement is that the borrower or affiant is not reading all of the documents before signing them. That means the complete set of documents. That's my take on it.

Reply by Maureen_nh on 10/1/10 10:57pm
Msg #355107

Re: Subverting the position of notary

We know lawyers offices often are fast and loose with notarizations, now it appears a whole section of loan companies throughout the country are.
I do not believe that any state allows notarizations without the presence of the signer, but in business it is common.
I worked for an international company and signed a doc which was to be notarized and my supervisor, knowing I notarized had the grace to admit that it would be notarized at a later date by a "company" notary.

The courts and states have really got to clamp down on this.
Christmas trees and holly, as NSA we jump through unnessary hoops and GMAC etc gets away with causing undue suffering to thousands of families.

I think that company notaries ought to be monitored and protected . How I don't know

Reply by Julie/MI on 10/1/10 11:16pm
Msg #355109

Nice blurb from Michgan's notary laws re employer liablity

A notary public's employer is also liable if the notary was acting within the actual or apparent scope of his or her employment, and the employer had knowledge of and consented to or permitted the official misconduct.

A notary public is not liable for the truth, form or contents of a record that he or she notarizes.

Reply by jba/fl on 10/1/10 11:20pm
Msg #355110

Re: Nice blurb from Michgan's notary laws re employer liablity

And wasn't that the basis for the FedEx lawsuit - that FE was liable for what their employee notary did?

The sooner more understand this concept, the better off the general notary public will be, as well as SA's.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 10/2/10 7:10am
Msg #355120

Definitely fascinating stuff

I can almost FEEL the tension being put out in the atmosphere by probably MOST of the lenders & the title companies, too - as the 'what if's' and the vast implications start spinning in their brains.

It sure spins in my brain. What will the consequences be, from stopping foreclosure proceedings on what will surely be hugely significant numbers? What of those foreclosed properties that have already sold? Will the title companies be taking hits on them? That's unimaginable, it would seem to be financially horrific to the entire t/ins industry? If foreclosures stall long enough, will it affect the housing market??

Reply by Claudine Osborne on 10/2/10 9:44pm
Msg #355188

Re: Definitely fascinating stuff..

Ohio notaries are sadly undertrained..Roger Rill of the Ohio Society of Notaries sent me a wonderful response to this article today..Roger is shaking feathers to get much needed reform of Ohio notary laws! But these reforms take time and we are hoping for the best.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/3/10 12:59am
Msg #355199

Re: Definitely fascinating stuff

"It sure spins in my brain."

Very well put! All the potential ramifications truly are mind-boggling. Seems like it could affect the housing market, the title and insurance industries and the banking industries. If the tc/ins co's do end up taking big hits - which I suppose is plausible - we could see another cascade of tc's going out of business. It may not be pretty for us. Also, can you imagine all the people who have potentially been foreclosed on in error? I can see that becoming a new source of business for lots of attorneys out there (legitimately or otherwise).

Let's hope that's not the case!